1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the part of the disposition of this case, which was additionally paid, is unlawful, since it was imposed without confirmation of tax liability through taxation.

Judgment

Article 21(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “The obligation to pay income tax shall come into existence when the taxable period ends (Article 21(1)1), and the obligation to pay additional tax shall come into existence when the liability to pay tax comes

Meanwhile, Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “National taxes shall be determined in accordance with the relevant tax-related procedures.” Article 10-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “When the amount of tax is determined in accordance with the relevant tax-related procedures under Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, income tax shall be determined at the time when the tax base and tax amount are reported to the Government (Article 22(1)1), but where the Government determines the tax base

According to these regulations, income tax and its additional taxes are established at the end of the taxable period, and when the tax authority determines the tax base and amount of tax because the taxpayer fails to report the tax base and amount of tax, the decision shall be made.

As seen earlier, the instant disposition became final and conclusive by the Defendant on February 4, 2014 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file a return on the tax base and amount of capital gains tax.

Therefore, the disposition of imposing additional tax for arrears of this case is not made without confirmation of tax liability, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.